Ministers and senior civil servants should respect each other – and the rule of law

There are reports of trouble in the Home Office – disputes between the home secretary and the civil service including over the rule of law, and allegations of bullying.

Ministers must maintain high standards of behaviour, treat political and civil service colleagues with respect, and comply with the law. Those rules make up the first three paragraphs of the Ministerial Code. The first responsibility of a permanent secretary, in turn, is to gain and hold the confidence of their secretary of state. The Civil Service Code is explicit that officials must “act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers”.

Whatever has happened here, something has gone seriously wrong with one, or both, of these roles. The fact that it has broken out in such dramatic fashion must be a big concern for both the civil service and government.

Discord in government is damaging

No department functions well when its political and civil service leaders are in serious conflict; this is only made worse if that conflict is played out in the media. It damages the wider effectiveness of government too. It risks senior ministers and officials second-guessing each other and can generate an “us and them” culture, rather than a team working together.

That these reports have appeared just after the announcement of a flagship new immigration policy illustrates the problem. There is no suggestion that the immigration reforms are the cause of the dispute, but the row has distracted from the announcement of a major government policy.

Disagreements between ministers and civil servants are not uncommon

Tensions between ministers, special advisers and senior officials are not new. Richard Crossman’s diaries revealed the rows he had with his permanent secretary, Evelyn Sharp, at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in the 1960s. She survived his protests. In 2000, Tony Blair’s No.10 wanted Richard Packer removed as permanent secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, believing he was undermining its policies. While his secretary of state supported him, Packer did eventually leave.

In 2013, there were widespread accounts in the media that Iain Duncan Smith, then work and pensions secretary, was in conflict with his permanent secretary, Robert Devereux. On that occasion Devereux remained in post until well after Duncan Smith’s resignation in 2016.

These examples are far from the only times such tensions have arisen. It is not surprising that when ministers and senior civil servants come together there are sometimes clashes. Ministers are right to want the best people working hard to deliver their priorities, which can mean moving staff on. But most disputes are resolved away from the media.

Bullying accusations must be properly investigated

A bigger concern for the prime minister and cabinet secretary should be the allegations that frustrations in the department have led to ministerial bullying from the home secretary and other inappropriate behaviour.

The Home Office and No.10 have both said that no formal complaints about bullying have been made, and allies of the home secretary strongly reject the claims, adding that “the Home Office is dysfunctional”. But where there are concerns, recent experience – from the #MeToo movement and claims about the behaviour of the former Speaker and others in parliament – has shown that rapid, independent investigation is the only fair way to proceed.

The same applies here. The civil service is an employer like any other. Just as with complaints to the Cabinet Office about the treatment of special advisers, the civil service has no option but to address them professionally. It is important that ministers respect that, and give it the opportunity to do so. An HR process should not become an internal political dispute.

The law underpins legitimate government

It is also reported that there have been clashes in the Home Office about legal cases, including the High Court ruling preventing the deportation of foreign criminals to Jamaica. As Sir Jonathan Jones KCG QC, the government’s top civil service legal adviser said at an IfG event earlier this month, “the government is entitled to test the law” to work out the limits of its power, and of course to appeal cases and to try to change the law through parliament. Ministers do not need to blindly accept the advice of government lawyers or avoid legal risks.

However, as we saw last year with the EU Withdrawal (No.2) Act, or Benn Act, requirements to request an extension to the UK’s EU membership beyond 31 October 2019, ministers cannot break the law, and civil servants cannot support them in doing so. Adherence to the law underpins everything else government does.

Government and politics can be extraordinarily difficult. It can be worse when personal disagreements get mixed in. Any government will sometimes become frustrated in getting change to happen. But when legitimate disagreements occur it is imperative to try to resolve them with respect.